HVX200 and XL-H1

thefilmaddict said:
I also don't think that saying a camera has a filmic look is a bad thing or wrong. I think that with the introduction of HD and 24p, many of these cameras do look more like film. What's wrong with that statement?
Click to expand...

Yes many of us are looking for a film like quality in the video we produce, but the problem comes when stating after two minutes analysis that X or Y camera has got "that look", while another does not.

A similar view has been expressed countless times re the DVX vs. XL2 by people who have no experience using the latter. Most people (Ash being a case in point) who have used both cameras extensively find they produce very similar results (albeit with a cleaner, higher res image in the XL2). This fact is countered by the argument that the DVX has more "mojo". Yawn. It would be nice if we can have more reasoned discussion of the cameras this time around. I bought both the DVX100 and the 100a, but I do tire of simplistic pro-panny statements, and the word "filmic" being bandied about.

To resign the XLH1 to non-feature work is premature. This camera will be used for many digital features. It's way too early to make any kind of declaration on what camera would be more suited to narrative film making.

Of course, if a preference for one is stated as a personal opinion, based on their own situation, then that's another matter.
 
lacuna said:
Yes many of us are looking for a film like quality in the video we produce, but the problem comes when stating after two minutes analysis that X or Y camera has got "that look", while another does not.

A similar view has been expressed countless times re the DVX vs. XL2 by people who have no experience using the latter. Most people (Ash being a case in point) who have used both cameras extensively find they produce very similar results (albeit with a cleaner, higher res image in the XL2). This fact is countered by the argument that the DVX has more "mojo". Yawn. It would be nice if we can have more reasoned discussion of the cameras this time around. I bought both the DVX100 and the 100a, but I do tire of simplistic pro-panny statements, and the word "filmic" being bandied about.

To resign the XLH2 to non-feature work is premature. This camera will be used for many digital features. It's way too early to make any kind of declaration on what camera would be more suited to narrative film making.

Of course, if a preference for one is stated as a personal opinion, based on their own situation, then that's another matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's exactly my point.

I wouldn't shoot a narrative with the XL2, I couldn't ever bring myself to do it. In fact, I'd rather rent a DVX100a/b than shoot a narrative with an XL2. But there's a reason for that. And I can point out examples across the web as to why I couldn't bring myself to do it.

That's my personal preference, that's how I state it as an opinion.

Here's how it's stated wrong:

I suggest the XL2 for documentaries, and the DVX100a/b for narrative.

Too add to that, as it's said above me: The XLH1 and the HVX200 haven't been used enough to even get close to stating some kind of suggestion as to which should be used for which. That's just incorrect and unfair to BOTH cameras.

I wasn't bashing your opinion, but your suggestions, yes. They're not viable as of now.
 
Kholi,

You make some very good points. I can see both sides, but I agree with you on the point that no quick in store test can conclude what each camera was made or should be used for. I'm not sure that's what the original post meant exactly.

Anywho, I imagine that those of us that are lucky enough to have a big store near them (that has both cameras on display) will make a final decision based on what they see in the store (plus lots of accurate web research). A better test would be to rent each camera, but not everyone can do that. I love getting opinions from people who have touched either or both of the cameras. I hope more owners wil chime in and give their opinion without holding anything back (after, of course, stating that it's just an opinion).
 
What makes video seem more like film is the motion and the motion is identical. Same with the XL2 and DVX. I think people like the stock gamma curve of Panny better and somehow it means that it emulates film better. Film look is subjective, to me it means lighting, set-up, moves, focus control, DOF, and finally 24P motion but to many, especially DVX fans, film look means "Man on Fire." I think that is what they mean by "mojo" You CAN get that look from an XL2 or XLH, just doesnt come as easy as choosing F5 setup =o)

I have done COUNTLESS 2 camera shoots with a DVX and XL2 and the editing was pretty seamless with some preparation. After messing with the HVX and XLH, I should be able to do the same.

ash =o)
 
AshG said:
What makes video seem more like film is the motion and the motion is identical. Same with the XL2 and DVX. I think people like the stock gamma curve of Panny better and somehow it means that it emulates film better. Film look is subjective, to me it means lighting, set-up, moves, focus control, DOF, and finally 24P motion but to many, especially DVX fans, film look means "Man on Fire." I think that is what they mean by "mojo" You CAN get that look from an XL2 or XLH, just doesnt come as easy as choosing F5 setup =o)

I have done COUNTLESS 2 camera shoots with a DVX and XL2 and the editing was pretty seamless with some preparation. After messing with the HVX and XLH, I should be able to do the same.

ash =o)
Click to expand...

Ash I'm always happy to read your input. I've come to the conclusion you tell it like it is. Last year I bought an XL2 after having owned two DVX cameras. I was almost put off by all the fanboys bashing the XL2 here and there, but I wanted a camera for a 16:9 project and I wasn't happy with noise in the DVX. A few of your in depth, clinical posts at that time influenced my decision to purchase an XL2 (I liked the camera, but I almost couldn't trust my own eyes with all the naysayers around).

Anyway, everything you said about those cameras rings true. I'd recommend others to read through a few of your archived posts for what is IMO rational, balanced analysis - now don't go getting a big head :-)

So thanks. I'm pleased you have your hands on the XLH1 & HVX and look forward to your further comments.

(For my part, they both look like great cameras. I'm sure either could do a swell job on a narrative project, so it probably comes down to workflow. The HD100 isn't looking like such a bad contender either).
 
What makes video seem more like film? 24P? No. Motion blur and DOF are the major elements in filmlook. The frame rate can be 25p or if it was 23-26 you woudn't see much different , would you? Just thing about all those actions movies. Was it made with 24fps? No. The projections framerate is 24fps but they use different framerate to make it. Colors? Yes, but there is more variation of look in the real Celluloid Film Word than all those gamma settings in your camcorder. I don't mention lighting, framing etc. because we are talking about filmmaking and you have to make your video-film as a film.
 
The last few posts are exactly what should be said around here. I won't even reiterate what's been said, they're all valid points and are what should be taken into consideration.

Now, if AshG would do some motion tests and post the after compression results. Hehe.
 
Kholi said:
No, you weren't simply stating that. If you simply stated it, that would've been ALL you said.

Instead, you went on to type and suggest circumstances for either camera to be used. And what's funnier, is that neither have even been used to enough to even say that More people use this camera for this circumstance.

You outright condemned BOTH cameras to a certain job specification when you don't even have one your damned self.

That's why I said your thread was pointless. Not because you have an opinion about how one of these cameras looks out of the box.

Your opinion is your opinion, state it clearly.

It should've read..

"I would use the XLH1 only for documentaries and the HVX for narrataive production, personally."

People come here looking for info all of the time. Believe it or not, some people don't actually use free-will to make their decisions; they go on what other people say.

That said: use either camera for what you want. Let everyone else decide based on finished product... not a display comparison.

pft.
Click to expand...


Kholi. Usually I ignore people like you. But some of your comments are very difficult to ignore. Heres a quote from my original post:

-----------

Conclusion. HERE' S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST for those who cant decide on which camera to purchase.

For documentaries, weddings, sports, reality TV, etc -- GET CANON, hands down. It is sharp. It records to tape (for long record times), and it has the best reality look.

For anything narrative, creative, music video, or film related, GET PANASONIC. Hands down. It's softer. It records to P2 for creative versatility(instantly delete bad takes), and it has the best film look.

------------

Notice the capitals. It says Here's what I (I -- as in my opinion) would suggest. It doesn't say that what I am saying is the definitive answer. I mean, Come on, man, most people are smart enough to know that this is just my opinion based upon the limited circumstances at a camera store where I saw these cameras.

I know you need the last word, so this is my last post on the subject. Have a nice day.
 
For all the PAL users, there is not a person on earth who could tell 25P from 24P. 24P and motion blur go pretty hand in hand. Another tip for film look is to use your lens long when possible which will help with the DOF...



ash =o)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top